About your Search

20120701
20120731
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
for the conservative caucus is the panama canal. their idea, roughly speaking, is we need to invade panama and talk the panama canal back because obviously, communists or something. the panama canal and up all night hair on fire fantasies about communists coming up the canal to come get us in the middle of the night, those have been around for a while, in the 1970s and the 1980s. the panama canal was the fast and furious, birth certificate, the president is a secret muslim conspiracy theory of its day. when that panama canal conspiracy theory was lighting up the tin foil hats of the generation ago, it was an ambition politician named ronal reagan who took that issue from the fringe and decide today mainstream it into national mainstream republican politics. he based his presidential campaign in part on this insane idea that the panama canal was basically an american state that we can't let the communists steal this american thing from us. he mainstreamed this paranoid far right fantasy that if we went along with our treaty obligations to let panama run its own canal, then america would seize to exi
about passage of the panama, colombia, and korea free trade agreements, and once again they are providing tremendous leadership on our goal of creating good american jobs by prying open that mark and ensuring that the united states worker will have access to it. if you think about not only creating jobs here, but dealing with the problems of crony capitalism, dealing with the problems of a massive bureaucracy, and dealing with a corrupt court system which is what exists under putin today, this is the right thing for us to do. we should not lose access to the market. i also want to note that my very good friend, mr. herger, who has been a great leader on the issue of trade is here, mr. berg is here who has very involved in this. i would be happy to yield to my friend from new york, mr. reed, who has played an important role on this issue. mr. reed: i thank the gentleman. i rise today in strong support to join my friend from california as he knows we have been supportive of free trade from the moment we got here. i was so pleased to see colombia, panama, and south korea b
? >why? >> i can go back to the invasion of panama in 1989 and worked for. we realize that just having a military battle you had one was not the end of the game. perhaps we should have done at the beginning to avoid that battle in the first time -- place or, having won the battle, how do we preserve the peace? >> you have to be careful when we talk about these terms such as smart power or heart power or soft power. i'm reminded of a conversation i had with the former archbishop of canterbury in 2003. you might have been there. it was on the eve of the second gulf war. the archbishops stood up and said, general powell, why don't we just use soft power? it was a critique of what we were getting ready to do. the answer i gave him was that it was not soft power that rescue britain from hitler. it was part power. you had to have all of it. when we won with hard power in world war ii, we use soft power in germany and asia to create democracies. the importance of this coalition, what makes what we are doing tonight so important, is that we understand that we need it all. we have been shortcha
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)